Author
Topic: Is theological Dialogue useful? (Read 9367 times)

I doubt much can be done. We believe we are the Church, and you believe you are the Church. Neither of us are willing to compromise our beliefs, so how is resumption of communion possible? We are at an impasse.

I doubt much can be done. We believe we are the Church, and you believe you are the Church. Neither of us are willing to compromise our beliefs, so how is resumption of communion possible? We are at an impasse.

I tend to agree with you here about the impasse. I am of the opinion that the unlikely prospect of progress is due to the initial approach, that being addressing the oldest issues first. Better would have been to start with the newest ones - Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In essence, walking the schism back would yield better results. That probably will not happen.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I doubt much can be done. We believe we are the Church, and you believe you are the Church. Neither of us are willing to compromise our beliefs, so how is resumption of communion possible? We are at an impasse.

I tend to agree with you here about the impasse. I am of the opinion that the unlikely prospect of progress is due to the initial approach, that being addressing the oldest issues first. Better would have been to start with the newest ones - Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In essence, walking the schism back would yield better results. That probably will not happen.

But they can say those things are rooted in older issues.

Plus we don't use the F word in The Church, so that needs to be resolved. (If you need me to explain I will do so)

Yes the approach is wrong, as far as Orthodox reveling about the schism. We have a long way to go, but if it's in God's will, let it be so. I pray for union.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I doubt much can be done. We believe we are the Church, and you believe you are the Church. Neither of us are willing to compromise our beliefs, so how is resumption of communion possible? We are at an impasse.

I tend to agree with you here about the impasse. I am of the opinion that the unlikely prospect of progress is due to the initial approach, that being addressing the oldest issues first. Better would have been to start with the newest ones - Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In essence, walking the schism back would yield better results. That probably will not happen.

But they can say those things are rooted in older issues.

Plus we don't use the F word in The Church, so that needs to be resolved. (If you need me to explain I will do so)

Yes the approach is wrong, as far as Orthodox reveling about the schism. We have a long way to go, but if it's in God's will, let it be so. I pray for union.

I really hope you're not purposefully misconstruing my opinion. I do not revel at all, but I am immovable.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I doubt much can be done. We believe we are the Church, and you believe you are the Church. Neither of us are willing to compromise our beliefs, so how is resumption of communion possible? We are at an impasse.

I tend to agree with you here about the impasse. I am of the opinion that the unlikely prospect of progress is due to the initial approach, that being addressing the oldest issues first. Better would have been to start with the newest ones - Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In essence, walking the schism back would yield better results. That probably will not happen.

But they can say those things are rooted in older issues.

Plus we don't use the F word in The Church, so that needs to be resolved. (If you need me to explain I will do so)

Yes the approach is wrong, as far as Orthodox reveling about the schism. We have a long way to go, but if it's in God's will, let it be so. I pray for union.

I really hope you're not purposefully misconstruing my opinion. I do not revel at all, but I am immovable.

No I know what your opinion is, I'm talking about alot of the Orthodox who revel in it.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I doubt much can be done. We believe we are the Church, and you believe you are the Church. Neither of us are willing to compromise our beliefs, so how is resumption of communion possible? We are at an impasse.

I tend to agree with you here about the impasse. I am of the opinion that the unlikely prospect of progress is due to the initial approach, that being addressing the oldest issues first. Better would have been to start with the newest ones - Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In essence, walking the schism back would yield better results. That probably will not happen.

But they can say those things are rooted in older issues.

Plus we don't use the F word in The Church, so that needs to be resolved. (If you need me to explain I will do so)

Yes the approach is wrong, as far as Orthodox reveling about the schism. We have a long way to go, but if it's in God's will, let it be so. I pray for union.

I really hope you're not purposefully misconstruing my opinion. I do not revel at all, but I am immovable.

No I know what your opinion is, I'm talking about alot of the Orthodox who revel in it.

And you have some quantified, verifiable data defining alot (sic)?

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I am starting to wonder. Is theological dialogue useful? I know the Easter Orthodox often feel that it is pointless because they say that Catholicism changes so much that it is impossible to pin down Catholic theology. I know that I, at times, feel like it is pointless because the EO defines so little of it dogma that it is impossible to pin down EO theology. The point it, that maybe in these meetings, all we really do is make nice and talk about theological issues that will never be resolved. I know that you guys don't plan on changing your beliefs. We are in the same boat. If Rome suddenly said, oh we were wrong, and joined up wit the EO, Catholics like me would become sedevacantists. I know that if the patriarchs joined up with Rome, many EO Christians would NOT follow along. So my question is, what is the point? I think that there will probably be schisms until Christ returns. I wish it were not true, but I think that is the sad reality. What do you think?

I can't say flat-out that it isn't useful at all. However, I'm finding that the longer I live, the lower my opinion about its usefulness sinks.

For a long time I've realized that ecumenism is hampered by Catholics with completely unrealistic expectations (I think back to a quote I read a decade or so ago: "Reunion with the Orthodox is going to be a slam-dunk" or something to that effect).

And for an almost equally long time, I've realized that huge numbers of Orthodox are just completely un-ecumenical (or anti-ecumenical).

But only in the last few years I've discovered that those Orthodox who actually are ecumenical-minded very often have suspicious agenda.

But only in the last few years I've discovered that those Orthodox who actually are ecumenical-minded very often have suspicious agenda.

Please enlighten us on what kind of suspicious agenda they have.

It's a bit difficult to distill my experiences over the last several years which led me to that conclusion; but one example would be those (ecumenical-minded) Orthodox who are always seeking to drive a wedge between Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics.

I'm at a loss to understand why you think Orthodox would revel in the Schism, which was obviously a tragedy.

As I've said before, (of course this is anecdotal evidence, fwiw), the majority of Orthodox don't even think about the Schism or the Catholic Church from one day to the next, much less revel. This simply isn't even on the radar.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

I'm at a loss to understand why you think Orthodox would revel in the Schism, which was obviously a tragedy.

As I've said before, (of course this is anecdotal evidence, fwiw), the majority of Orthodox don't even think about the Schism or the Catholic Church from one day to the next, much less revel. This simply isn't even on the radar.

I agree with Katherine completely - for most of us - on either side of the schism - the separation of the Churches is something that we 'know' exists but for the most part is 'under the radar' of our everyday lives. Most of us don't harbor the intensity of feelings or emotions (and yes, I deliberately chose those words) that are expressed oftentimes online by either apologists or polemicists of either camp. As far as 'reveling' in the schism? Those folks are few and far between and IMHO do not represent the majority of thought in either the Orthodox or the Roman worlds. The fact that such opinions exist ought not to preclude continuing efforts to heal the enmity among Christians or to find a common approach to the challenges facing the religious in an increasingly secular or fundamentalist planet. Getting along doesn't mean intercommunion, but it does make for a better world. Besides, if we don't have to hurl the insults and affronts of the past at each other, within our own communities we can live lives which better exemplify the Christian ideal.

Unless we cancel some ecumenical councils, or you decide we're not heterodox after all, yep.

It seems to me that in order to 'work around' Vatican 1, Rome would have to acknowledge that the council was not 'ecumenical', that is - on par with the first seven councils. Without the consensus of the entire body of the universal Church - that would have to include the Orthodox - Pastor Aeternus could be viewed as a failed attempt to assert what it purports to assert - just as we view Florence. Falling back onto an agreed upon understanding of the roles of the ancient Pentarchy and the Bishop of Rome is the difficult part of any equation in that this has been a point of disputation for near on 1200 years or so..... ( see for example: "An Agreed statement on Conciliarity and Primacy in the Church U.S. Theological Consultation, 1989" http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/conciliarityandprimacy.html)

However, all of this is easier said than done. If God wills it in our time, so shall it be - otherwise - keep on praying.